But the troll that is trying to argue with me about this STILL claims that Texas Republican Rep. Bill Flores suggested Tuesday that the ongoing unrest in Baltimore is largely due to the "breakdown of the family," which he tied to the legalization of gay MARRIAGE.

Basically the troll does not understand basic argumentative techniques.

It is clear that this is a case of "contextomy" and the politician is being taken out of context to make him look bad.

Clearly the Texas Republican is saying that gay marriage would make the riots worse, rather than blaming the riots on gay marriage. Thus he is baiting his followers with some red meat, rather than doing what she claims - that the Politicians is blaming the Baltimore riots on gay marriage.

Just wanted to a consensus of debaters to show her (the troll) what I already know - that I won this debate hands down.

But the troll that is arguing with me still persists in her claim that Texas Republican Rep. Bill Flores is blaming the Baltimore riots on gay MARRIAGE.

Basically the troll does not understand basic argumentative techniques.

It is clear that this is a case of "contextomy" and the politician is being taken out of context to make him look bad.

Clearly the Texas Republican is saying that gay marriage would make the riots worse, rather than blaming the riots on gay marriage. Thus he is baiting his followers with some red meat, rather than doing what she claims - that the Politicians is blaming the Baltimore riots on gay marriage.

Just wanted to a consensus of debaters to show her (the troll) what I already know - that I won this debate hands down.

But the troll that is trying to argue with me about this STILL claims that Texas Republican Rep. Bill Flores suggested Tuesday that the ongoing unrest in Baltimore is largely due to the "breakdown of the family," which he tied to the legalization of gay MARRIAGE.

Basically the troll does not understand basic argumentative techniques.

It is clear that this is a case of "contextomy" and the politician is being taken out of context to make him look bad.

Clearly the Texas Republican is saying that gay marriage would make the riots worse, rather than blaming the riots on gay marriage. Thus he is baiting his followers with some red meat, rather than doing what she claims - that the Politicians is blaming the Baltimore riots on gay marriage.

Just wanted to a consensus of debaters to show her (the troll) what I already know - that I won this debate hands down.

I dont get it. Putting a stigma on being gay, probably results in more single parented childeren then allowing gay marriage does. So why are you having an agument supporting the senator splitting hairs when his hypothesis is clearly wrong regardless how you interpret it.

You were wrong. You assert that the Texas Rep.'s comments were "more about the rise of single parent households in the black communities" than about gay marriage. The Texas Rep.'s comments were more about gay marriage than the lack of marriages in the black community.

First, the context of the Texas Rep.'s discussion -

According to the evidence you supplied, the Texas Rep. was talking about Obergefell v. Hodges on a radio program hosted by the Family Research Council ("FRC"). Here's what wiki says about the FRC:

The FRC promotes what it considers to be traditional family values, by advocating and lobbying for socially conservative policies. It opposes and lobbies against LGBT rights (such as same-sex marriage and LGBT adoption), abortion, divorce, embryonic stem-cell research and pornography. The FRC is affiliated with a 501(c)(4) lobbying PAC known as FRC Action.[3] In 2010, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) classified the FRC as an anti-gay hate group, a designation which generated controversy.

Here's about SCOTUSblog says about Obergefell v. Hodges:

Issue: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Second, what the Texas Rep. said according to the article:

"breakdown of the family,"

"Breakdown of the family" is said repeatedly by the Texas Rep.

"the last stop to fix problems,"

"the breakdown of the family, which the redefinition of would only accelerate."

"Redefinition" refers to redefining marriage; Gay marriage referenced, and tied to the "breakdown of the family."

"Let"s talk about poverty for instance,"

"The single best indicator of whether or not a child is going to be in poverty or not is whether or not they were raised by a two-parent household or a single-parent household. And so the breakdown of the family has contributed to poverty."

Poverty is tied to the "breakdown of the family" which the Texas Rep. also tied to gay marriage.

"You look at what's going on in Baltimore today, you know, you see the issues that are raised there,"

He ties the issue to the Baltimore riots.

"And healthy marriages are the ones between a man and a woman because they can have a healthy family and they can raise children in the way that's best for their future, not only socially but psychologically, economically, from a health perspective. There's just nothing like traditional marriage that does that for a child. Each of us has a mother and a father, and there's just no way to get around that."

These comments strongly imply that gay marriages are not good for children.

Given the context of the discussion and the comments of the Texas Rep., it is reasonable to conclude that he was talking more about gay marriage than he was about absent fathers.